[__ Science __ ] Evolution and Harmless Mutations

[Luminous_Rose]

Perhaps you don't know what "evolution" means. It's defined as a change in allele frequency in a population over time.

I noticed you separated my post, which would take the whole meaning I was getting at. I was refering to evolution (of course a lot of these are broken into many types of evolution these days) as in a change of kinds that does not exist. I am talking like ape to man.

DNA shows that all life known on Earth is of a single kind. If you mean "species", that's been observed to evolve. If you mean "phylum", that takes longer. It's like denying that giant redwoods can grow to maturity from seeds, because no one has ever seen it happen. No one takes such arguments seriously.

If all DNA on Earth of a single kind, doesn't this defeat the purpose of Creation? Adam and Eve were created with their own DNA. God created each animal with their own DNA. While dogs can breed and create a new type of dog, a dog and cat cannot breed and make a catdog. You might have to elaborate more on what you mean. What are your examples for changes of kinds or observable evidence in changes of species?

On the other hand Tibetans, over several thousand years, evolved alleles to live at very high elevations. That sort of adaptation is evolution.

I think in science this would be more of a description of natural selection rater than molecule to man evolution. I cannot see adaptation and evolution ever being one and the same.

It's true. The less you know about evolution, the more likely you are to fear or deny it.

There is nothing wrong with being able to understand the workings of our world. However, there is nothing wrong with appreciating God's amazing creations without ever bothering to have to explain it. It can be amazing to say, "Wow, God has made this! How awesome!" And sitting back to enjoy it for what it is.

 

[KevinK]

Selective pressures (heat for one example) pressures the actual genes to mutate at a higher rate (i.e. mutation is not random). That’s what I’m reporting.

Well, yes, habitual heat increase would increase the mutation rate (and as Barbarian noted, so do other things like radiation, chemicals, etc.), but you can't call that a selective pressure. OK, so heat goes up, increases the mutation rate, thereby eventually producing genes that confer greater heat-adaptiveness to the organism- say bigger sweat glands. It also increases all types of other beneficial phenotypes, let's say better eyesight. You can't make the jump and say that heat causes better eyesight. Neither can you really say that heat causes bigger sweat glands, in the sense that a double-strand of DNA responded directly to changes in heat by coding itself for larger sweat glands.

Natural selection works directly only on phenotypes, drawing on a pool of random mutations. I think I agree with Barbarian that you're confusing genotypes and phenotypes, or at least not understanding the mechanism fully. DNA is an amazing molecule, but it isn't smart. If you're saying that God Himself directly re-programs the gene sequence, well that I could accept.

 

[chessman]

Neither can you really say that heat causes bigger sweat glands, in the sense that a double-strand of DNA responded directly to changes in heat by coding itself for larger sweat glands.

I think you (Like Barbarian) are confusing something I said or quoted with something you think I said, but really didn’t say. For example, I never said; heat causes bigger sweat glands. What I provided was a link to some modern research that proves one of the fundamental hypotheses of evolutionary theory (mutations are random) false. Here it is again:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2729700/

I think I agree with Barbarian that you're confusing genotypes and phenotypes, or at least not understanding the mechanism fully.

Nope. Maybe you could back-quote my confusing genotype with phenotype.

BTW, an organism’s cells like E-Coli bacteria has a genotype, not genotypes.

“In E. coli heat-shock induces approximately 30 genes under control of another sigma factor, RpoH (σ32).”​

​

So, according to the article, does heat-shock (one of four stresses studied) induce these 30 genes within the genotype of E-Coli or in its phenotype?

But here’s the whole point of the publication:

6. Adaptive mutation​

When populations of microorganisms are subjected to non-lethal selection, mutations arise that relieve the selective pressure [35]. This phenomenon, originally called “directed mutation”, is now called “adaptive mutation”, by which is meant a process that produces advantageous mutations during selection even though other, non-selected, mutations occur at the same time.​

A mutation is either random or ‘directed’ (evidently much to controversial a word so they now use adaptive mutation instead).

If independent cultures are plated in parallel, the numbers of mutants among the cultures have a Luria Delbrück distribution, meaning that the Lac+ mutations occurred while the cells were growing prior to plating. These growth-dependent mutations occur at a rate of about 10−9 Lac+ revertants per cell per generation, which is a normal rate for reversion of a point mutation.​

​

Delbrück I heard won a Noble prize for his 20th Century work that applied statistics (random distribution) to mutation rates. The problem is, his random rates fall apart with directed stressers.

 

[Barbarian]

I noticed you separated my post, which would take the whole meaning I was getting at. I was refering to evolution (of course a lot of these are broken into many types of evolution these days) as in a change of kinds that does not exist. I am talking like ape to man.

There are so many transitional forms between apes and humans that creationists can't even agree which are apes and which are humans.

If all DNA on Earth of a single kind, doesn't this defeat the purpose of Creation?

God did it that way. Who are we do second-guess Him?

Adam and Eve were created with their own DNA. God created each animal with their own DNA.

So were you. It's just that you're not pleased with the way it was done.

While dogs can breed and create a new type of dog, a dog and cat cannot breed and make a catdog.

If they could, evolutionary theory would be in big trouble.

You might have to elaborate more on what you mean. What are your examples for changes of kinds or observable evidence in changes of species?

Reproductive isolation.

I cannot see adaptation and evolution ever being one and the same.

It's commonly observed. We see changes in environment, and genetic changes over time in populations to adapt to them. That's what evolution is.

There is nothing wrong with being able to understand the workings of our world. However, there is nothing wrong with appreciating God's amazing creations without ever bothering to have to explain it.

The more you understand of His creation, the more wonderful it is.

 

[KevinK]

OK, even if adaptive mutation does exist, are you saying that it drives the entire evolutionary process? I should think it a very minor phenomenon, and the majority of evolution still draws from a random mutation pool.

The way I used genotype is not incorrect, just different from how you used it. A genotype can refer to a specific set of alleles that code for a particular trait; thus an individual can be said to have many genotypes. At least that's how we used it wayyyy back when I was a biology student.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian explains:
Failed hypotheses are proposed explanations that didn't turn out to be true.

As is the case for five failed hypotheses I listed.

As you learned, most of those aren't even part of evolutionary theory.

Yea, the theroy’s very definition of species keeps changing.

As Darwin pointed out. You see, if creationism were true, it would be easy to identify species. But because speciation tends to take generations to happen, we end up with all sorts of intermediate cases that can't be easily determined.

Natural selection isn’t the issue with hypothesis 1 . Random (or not) mutations is the failed hypothesis.

[1]Do mutations arise randomly over time? Or [2]are they induced by unfavorable environments? By addressing these crucial evolutionary questions, Salvador Luria and Max Delbrück won a Nobel Prize and helped to start the field of bacterial genetics.​

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4788220/​

​

Their answer was [1].[/quote]

And remains so. As they demonstrated, mutations don't appear in response to need, but arrive randomly.

Now the answer is [2].

Nope. You're confusing the random appearance of mutations with the rate at which they appear. Scientists have known for a very long time that various chemical and physical factors can alter mutation rates. But they still arrive randomly. Throwing dice faster or slower doesn't change the fact that the results are random.

The RNA world is a hypothetical stage in the evolutionary history of life on Earth,

But as you learned, not part of evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory assumes living things, and describes how they change over time. It doesn't describe how life came to be.

in which self-replicating RNA molecules proliferated before the evolution of DNA and proteins.

Turns out, proteins were here before nucleic acids. But that's not part of evolutionary theory, either. If you like, we can talk about that in a new thread.

The code is “universal”,

Nope. Nearly so, but not universal, as you just learned.
Barbarian, earlier:
It isn't the same in all living cells. Even in animal cells, the coding in mitochondria differs:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3191813/

So that’s your hypothesis? Only one of many different life codes survived?

That's not certain yet. But of course, it's not part of evolutionary theory.


Hypothesis 4:

The key was to identify “a long series of gradations in complexity, each good for its possessor” which could lead to “any conceivable degree of perfection.” (Darwin, 165)​

​

As Darwin pointed out, evolution can simplify organisms as well. He spends a good deal of time talking about vestigial organs, no longer functioning as they once did.​

Yet analyses of genomes and of their transcribed genes in various organisms reveal that, as far as protein-coding genes are concerned, the repertoire of a sea anemone—a rather simple, evolutionarily basal animal—is almost as complex as that of a human. (Technau)

Technau, U. 2008. “Evolutionary biology: Small regulatory RNAs pitch in.” Nature 455:1184-1185.​

​

​

Almost, but not at the molecular level, where vertebrate histones have a much more varied set of functions.​

​

(Barbarian notes that vertebrate eyes are much more complex than trilobite eyes)​

Complex doesn’t mean they have an iris (or not).

Vertebrate eyes have mechanisms to control the amount of light that enters the eye, and a means to focus the eye. These are lacking in trilobites. As you now see, vertebrate eyes are much more complex.

Plus, the point of the research was about the protein coding complexity needed to form eyes in such an early creature, not the eye similarity themselves.

Show us that trilobite protein coding was as complex as that of vertebrates.

 

[Barbarian]

OK, even if adaptive mutation does exist, are you saying that it drives the entire evolutionary process?

Remember, random mutations can be neutral (usually) harmful (sometimes) or adaptive (every now and then). Natural selection sorts them out, removing the harmful ones and promoting the adaptive ones. But because there are a lot of neutral mutations, there are evolutionary changes that are neutral and just happen randomly.

I should think it a very minor phenomenon, and the majority of evolution still draws from a random mutation pool.

As you learned, useful mutations are from that random pool.

The way I used genotype is not incorrect, just different from how you used it. A genotype can refer to a specific set of alleles that code for a particular trait; thus an individual can be said to have many genotypes.

No. A genotype is the sum of genes in an organism.

The genotype is the part of the genetic makeup of a cell, and therefore of an organism or individual, which determines one of its characteristics (phenotype).[1] The term was coined by the Danish botanist, plant physiologist and geneticist Wilhelm Johannsen in 1903
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genotype

At least that's how we used it wayyyy back when I was a biology student.

I've been studying biology for over a half-century, and it's always been the way Johannsen defined it.

 

[KevinK]

Hey Barbarian, I'm on your side!

Anyway, what about tracking a single-trait genotype through various generations, or among different individuals? I've seen the term genotype used that way. Not often, I agree.

 

[chessman]

OK, even if adaptive mutation does exist, are you saying that it drives the entire evolutionary process?

No. Why would you think I said that???

I simply pointed out that so called ‘random mutations’ are not really as random as once theorized. Yet random mutation rates was once a fundamental hypothesis within evolutionary theory for decades.

I should think it a very minor phenomenon, and the majority of evolution still draws from a random mutation pool.

Okay, but the theory of how the whole process truly works (to include stresser effects, better known as environment, on mutation rates) is mutating at a significant rate these days. It’s not minor for scientists to prove that what was once thought to be random mutation rates are not really random.

 

[KevinK]

I wasn't saying you said that, only needed to clarify what you were saying. Which you did, thank you.

 

[Luminous_Rose]

There are so many transitional forms between apes and humans that creationists can't even agree which are apes and which are humans.

This is simply untrue. In Genesis, the Bible makes it clear that man is different than the animals.

Genesis 1:26 NIV:

Then God said, "Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

I don't believe we would be called "mankind" if we were apes.

A creationist by definition believes in creationism, which is:

1. the doctrine that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent Creator, and not graduallyevolved or developed.
2. (sometimes initial capital letter) thedoctrine that the true story of the creation of the universe is as it is recounted in theBible, especially in the first chapter ofGenesis.
3. the doctrine that God immediately creates out of nothing a new human soul for eachindividual born.

So, if a Christian is not a creationist (Believing that God created the Earth, people, and animals just as it says in the Bible), then what are they?

So were you. It's just that you're not pleased with the way it was done.

Another assumed thing that I did not say. I am thankful that God has created me and you in order to live and fulfill the purpose He has for our lives. In fact, I find it downright amazing how God could create people, animals, the sun, the moon, the stars, etc. I mean, we cannot make a plants and animals out of nothing, but God can!

Reproductive isolation.

Of...? You may need to elaborate on this.

The more you understand of His creation, the more wonderful it is.

Each to their own I suppose. Perhaps we all experience God's awe in different ways.

 

[chessman]

As you learned, most of those aren't even part of evolutionary theory.

Your claiming they are not, doesn’t mean they are not.

1. So the propsal/hypothesis of common descent is not a part evolutionary theory?

2. So a hypothesis of evolutionary history of life on Earth is not an evolutionary hypothesis??? You sure bout that?

The RNA world is a hypothetical stage in the evolutionary history of life on Earth, in which self-replicating RNA molecules proliferated before the evolution of DNA and proteins. The term also refers to the hypothesis that posits the existence of this stage.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_world

3 - 5 Never-mind, you carry on.

I thought they were all evolutionary hypotheses of published biologists but I see that your 50 years of study of what evolutionary hypotheses are and are not (as compared to the very definition of RNA world) is so far beyond what my pea brain can process). I could have swore a hypothesis about an evolutionary stage of life on earth was an evolutionary hypothesis. I guess not though.

 

[chessman]

Almost, but not at the molecular level,

So a report on analyses of genomes and of their transcribed genes in various organisms is “not at the molecular level”. Good to know.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
As you learned, most of those aren't even part of evolutionary theory.

Your claiming they are not, doesn’t mean they are not.

Show me which of Darwin's five points involve any of them. Let's see what you've got.

1. So the propsal/hypothesis of common descent is not a part evolutionary theory?

That wasn't one of your false hypotheses you thought was part of evolutionary theory. Common descent is a consequence of evolution.

2. So a hypothesis of evolutionary history of life on Earth is not an evolutionary hypothesis???

That wasn't one of the false hypotheses you thought was part of evolutionary theory, either.

You sure bout that?

Yep.

I thought they were all evolutionary hypotheses of published biologists but I see that your 50 years of study of what evolutionary hypotheses are and are not (as compared to the very definition of RNA world) is so far beyond what my pea brain can process).

You seem to have gotten confused about what you wrote earlier. You might want to go back and check. Or I could copy them here for you, if you don't remember.

 

[Barbarian]

Yet analyses of genomes and of their transcribed genes in various organisms reveal that, as far as protein-coding genes are concerned, the repertoire of a sea anemone—a rather simple, evolutionarily basal animal—is almost as complex as that of a human. (Technau)

Technau, U. 2008. “Evolutionary biology: Small regulatory RNAs pitch in.” Nature 455:1184-1185.

Barbarian observes:
Almost, but not at the molecular level, where vertebrate histones have a much more varied set of functions.

So a report on analyses of genomes and of their transcribed genes in various organisms is “not at the molecular level”.

It appears you've forgotten what you wrote earlier. I inserted it here for you, so you can see. As you see now, the evidence shows that the protein-coding processes for sea anemones (even though they are metazoans like vertebrates) are not as complex as the processes in vertebrates. Your own link admits this. The kingdom animalia shares a lot of commonalities, but there are some differences between coelentrates and vertebrates.

Good to know.

It's not something everyone knows. But now you do.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
There are so many transitional forms between apes and humans that creationists can't even agree which are apes and which are humans.

This is simply untrue.

It's demonstrably true. Creationists are all over the map when it comes to the transitional forms between other apes and humans. Here's a site that claims Homo erectus is fully human:
http://genesisapologetics.com/wp-co...2/2014/09/Fast-Facts-Homo-erectus-9-11-14.pdf

On the other hand, Duane Gish thought that Peking Man (Homo erectus) was an ape similar to a gibbon. And so on.

In Genesis, the Bible makes it clear that man is different than the animals.

Like God we are immortal souls. And we are like God in knowing good and evil. That is what He meant by "in His image." God doesn't have knees or earlobes or feet. He's a spirit, and as Jesus said, a spirit has no body.

Creationism:

1. the doctrine that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent Creator, and not graduallyevolved or developed.
2. (sometimes initial capital letter) thedoctrine that the true story of the creation of the universe is as it is recounted in theBible, especially in the first chapter ofGenesis.
3. the doctrine that God immediately creates out of nothing a new human soul for eachindividual born.

So, if a Christian is not a creationist (Believing that God created the Earth, people, and animals just as it says in the Bible), then what are they?

Christians who accept God's word as it is.

Barbarian on what makes macroevolution different from microevolution:
Reproductive isolation

Of...? You may need to elaborate on this.

The dividing line between evolution within a species, and macroevolution is when the new population no longer interbreeds successfully with the old population.

 

[Barbarian]

I simply pointed out that so called ‘random mutations’ are not really as random as once theorized. Yet random mutation rates was once a fundamental hypothesis within evolutionary theory for decades.

No. You're still confusing random mutations with mutation rates. The rates are not random, although they can be changed by physical or chemical means. Remember this: if you roll dice faster or slower, that doesn't mean that the results you get are no longer random.

 

[Razeontherock]

Barbarian on what makes macroevolution different from microevolution:
Reproductive isolation

The dividing line between evolution within a species, and macroevolution is when the new population no longer interbreeds successfully with the old population.

This is not at all what is meant by those who use the terms micro and macro evolution, so your definition isn't at all helpful to communication.

 

[Barbarian]

This is not at all what is meant by those who use the terms micro and macro evolution, so your definition isn't at all helpful to communication.

That's what the term means as scientists use them. "Microevolution" is evolution within a species. "Macroevolution" is evolution of new species. Both of these have been directly observed.

 

[Edward]

Really? All this for a crooked tail? My son's dog had a crooked tail...is this evolution in action? I think not.

More like, the slow puppy didn't quite make it out the door fast enough, and the screen door closed on his tail...